We've seen case after case on the OM. Posts about how the Zionist lobby and Congress (bought and controlled by AIPAC) are undermining US foreign policy interests and driving us toward another war produce no debate -- and usually not even a response.

When a response does occur, it's an attempt to smear the messenger.

Don't take it from mhgaffney -- take it from former CIA agent Phil Giraldi. See below.

Also recall -- it was no less than George Washington who warned against entangling alliances.

MHG

Some Might Call It Treason

By Philip Giraldi

December 19, 2013 "Information Clearing House - There is a major flaw in the United States Constitution. The Founders understood that partisan politics would inevitably result in bickering along party lines that would lead to charges that political opponents were betraying the country so they deliberately made it very difficult to charge others with "treason." Which is not to say that they did not regard treason as the most heinous of crimes. The fact that it is defined in the Constitution, one of only two crimes to be specified in the document, is telling, but they just wanted to make sure that when the charge was made it was made in all seriously, not to obtain frivolous political advantage. In Article III the Constitution states "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Because of the high bar set by the Constitution, treason convictions in the United States have been relatively few, normally occurring during declared wars. The last such conviction was in 1952. Elsewhere in the world, treason trials, if not common, occur when someone is believed to have collaborated with an actual declared enemy or to have subverted a country’s laws or constitution, to include attempting to overthrow an established government. Avoiding legal complexities, the Merriam Webster unabridged dictionary provides a broad primary definition for the word treason, describing it as "the betrayal of a trust."

The problem with the treason definition applicable in the United States is that it does not cover what we are seeing right now, something that the Founders could never have anticipated. I am referring to a concerted "betrayal of trust" by a group of American government elected officials in openly advancing policies that serve the interests of a foreign country, specifically the senators and congressmen who are lining up behind Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to oppose the White House’s attempt to negotiate an equitable solution to the thirty-five year confrontation with Iran. The discussion in Washington is now focused on possibly baseless allegations that Iran is seeking to acquire a nuclear weapon, but it is really all about Iranian military and economic power as it relates to the state of Israel. The dissident legislators include nearly all Republicans as well as many leading Democrats who have long been advocates for Israel. Their intention is to throw a spanner into the works by seeking to pass new sanctions legislation which, the Iranians have already warned, will end any possibility for a deal.

Neocon Noam Neusner recently provided an insight into what is going on in Congress, boasting that "Normally a party’s leadership will stand behind a president in his moment of diplomatic achievement. Not this time." He further explains that the "conspicuous silence" among Democrats is because they are "the men and the women, after all, who are on a first name basis with most of the board of AIPAC" and "they want to be in Washington long after Obama leaves the White House." And lest there be any confusion about what AIPAC and the rest of the Lobby want, Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League has offered his own critique, saying that he is "embarrassed by our government’s acceptance of Iran’s blackmail," calling secret talks with Iran "a violation of the special relationship with Israel."

The pressure has been so intense that President Barack Obama had to personally go to a gathering of a major component of the Israel Lobby – the Brookings Saban Center – to explain to Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban and a hostile audience what he intends to do about Iran. His explanation eventually expanded to include a complete sellout of the Palestinians, avoiding the subject of settlements, calling Israel a "Jewish state," and conceding that Tel Aviv has a right to call all the shots on its security demands. Secretary of State John Kerry has called Israeli Arabs a "demographic time bomb" so security presumably includes possible ethnic cleansing. Obama should have been embarrassed to subsequently attend the Mandela funeral, where he was observed laughing and grinning with other heads of state. Apparently everyone appreciates a good joke.

Congress meanwhile has been doing its part, disputing each and every White House justification for the negotiations, possibly inducing the Administration to respond by adding a number of Iranian trading partners to the list of organizations already subject to sanctions, leading to a temporary suspension of the talks in Geneva. The White House is now schizophrenically arguing that new sanctions are okay as long as they are not directed at the nuclear program, a ridiculous claim that Tehran is not buying into.

And the consequences of all the bickering are deadly serious, with many observers nervously noting that the only alternative to talks is war because the United States and Israel have excluded all other options.

With Christmas around the corner, I think of all the evil the US does of forcing countries to accept our billions of dollars in relief or millions spent on disaster missions to places like the Phillippines which is our former colony that we did horrible things like protect them from the Japanese invasion during WW2. The evil Americans have for others is down right disgusting.

With Christmas around the corner, I think of all the evil the US does of forcing countries to accept our billions of dollars in relief or millions spent on disaster missions to places like the Phillippines which is our former colony that we did horrible things like protect them from the Japanese invasion during WW2. The evil Americans have for others is down right disgusting.

So are you suggesting that the actions you described above somehow absolve a nation for all its misdeeds, crimes and atrocities committed against others?

So are you suggesting that the actions you described above somehow absolve a nation for all its misdeeds, crimes and atrocities committed against others?

Strange logic (and even stranger ethics.)

So are we going to keep feeling guilty about our past even though we continue to help them in the future? We help many countries in the world that have not had any American colony on them. We have approached the communist countries with aid when they have had natural disasters.

Isn't strange logic. We go on with our lives in the present. You don't have to forget the past but I sure as hell don't want to dwell on it either.

I guess you are the small group that think we should continue to feel guilty of our misdeeds and pay out in any form of currency, goods, services because of what happened 200 years ago.

So are we going to keep feeling guilty about our past even though we continue to help them in the future? We help many countries in the world that have not had any American colony on them. We have approached the communist countries with aid when they have had natural disasters.

Isn't strange logic. We go on with our lives in the present. You don't have to forget the past but I sure as hell don't want to dwell on it either.

I guess you are the small group that think we should continue to feel guilty of our misdeeds and pay out in any form of currency, goods, services because of what happened 200 years ago.

You are under a cruel illusion. Most of the so called help we give comes with strings attached. The goal being to get control over the nations -- to better loot them.

Oh really? So when Americans give billions of dollars to charities like Red Cross, we are asking for strings attached to the blood donated or supplies given to those that just had their entire village swept out into the ocean? I didn't know this about those charities? I guess we better stop giving one ioda about any of those countries so we can make sure we are not asking for anything in return.
Thanks, that is a few more six packs we can guzzle down our gullets this Christmas instead of helping out those poor 3rd world nation children with a palate deformity.

People have been conditioned to being abused by psychopaths in power, some of them become sycophants and support such behaviour and thus also continue the cycle of abuse, abusing those they perceive as lessors.

Oh really? So when Americans give billions of dollars to charities like Red Cross, we are asking for strings attached to the blood donated or supplies given to those that just had their entire village swept out into the ocean? I didn't know this about those charities? I guess we better stop giving one ioda about any of those countries so we can make sure we are not asking for anything in return.
Thanks, that is a few more six packs we can guzzle down our gullets this Christmas instead of helping out those poor 3rd world nation children with a palate deformity.

The only way we can ease their pain is by dismantling the International Jew Menace. Then all of their various lands will flow with Milk and Honey.

Sebastian Mallaby, economics columnist of the Washington Post, reacted sharply to Perkins' book:[4] describing him as "a "conspiracy theorist, a vainglorious peddler of nonsense, and yet his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, is a runaway bestseller." Mallaby, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, holds that Perkins' conception of international finance is "largely a dream" and that his "basic contentions are flat wrong."[4] As an example, Mallaby states that Indonesia reduced its infant mortality and illiteracy rates by two-thirds after economists persuaded its leaders to borrow money in 1970.[4]

Articles in the New York Times[1] and Boston magazine, as well as a press release issued by the United States Department of State, have referred to a lack of documentary or testimonial evidence to corroborate the claim that the NSA was involved in his hiring by Chas T. Main. In addition, the State Department states that the NSA "is a cryptological (codemaking and codebreaking) organization, not an economic organization" and that its missions do not involve "anything remotely resembling placing economists at private companies in order to increase the debt of foreign countries." The State Department release further reports that Perkins has alleged U.S. Government complicity in "the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., former Beatle John Lennon, and several unnamed U.S. senators who had died in plane crashes."[5]